Zach Ertz and Jesse James were clearcut. Dez Bryant appeared to be somewhere in between but for me it was not a catch as he was still "going to ground" while in the process of making the catch. Stumbling forward and falling down is not in control and therefore he had to secure the ball all the way to the ground. Dez could not have made that "catch" without falling down. Ertz was upright, made at least two steps forward while in full control and chose to make a leap/dive. You can't look at those two plays and tell me they are the same because they're not.

I don't even know why the Jesse James incompletion qualified as an 'incident'. Everyone can see that there was nothing more to that play than a catch or a non-catch. There was no element of runner/football move etc. He caught the ball and dived over the plane, without even taking a stride. Once he didn't survive the ground, it wasn't a catch, so there was no completion, so no possession & no TD. Simple call. Shouldn't be any fuss on that call. The frustration of the significance of the James incompletion caused the furore I'd contend, because the catch rules are specific and easy to follow on this play, and the call was 100% correct. There isn't even a 1% doubt about that Jesse James call. It's crazy that people still drag it up like some sort of injustice was perpetrated. For Al Michaels to mention it in the context of the Ertz TD the other night, without even qualifying the 'mention' to say that the two plays were completely different, was just mischievous unhelpful BS really.

Zach Ertz and Jesse James were clearcut. Dez Bryant appeared to be somewhere in between but for me it was not a catch as he was still "going to ground" while in the process of making the catch. Stumbling forward and falling down is not in control and therefore he had to secure the ball all the way to the ground. Dez could not have made that "catch" without falling down. Ertz was upright, made at least two steps forward while in full control and chose to make a leap/dive. You can't look at those two plays and tell me they are the same because they're not.

tbh i'm still not sure how anyone can be sure that Ertz would of kept his balance.

You're making a complicated rule even more complicated. Ertz clearly established himself as a runner. He could run 5, 10, 50 yards and get tripped up by the turf monster, it's still a catch.

its because this play pretty much lies right in the rules sweet spot.

to be a runner you need to catch the ball, two feet down, the this mystery period of time/action (used to be called a football move.) while staying upright and not going to the ground during any part of it.

he catches it, gets one foot down and then kinda looks off balance, then the second foot comes down and drags, while he is not upright.
the 3rd step is a dive forward.

so again theres no way to know because of all the variables if he would of managed to stay up right.

Clearly impossible to write a set of rules that will deliver 100% consistency on decisions, when there's 'no way to know' what certain situations equate to. Perhaps we shouldn't be looking for changes to the catch rules, when we cannot define certain game situations adequately, so as to frame hard & fast rules around those same inadequately defined 'situations / 'football moves '.

Clearly impossible to write a set of rules that will deliver 100% consistency on decisions, when there's 'no way to know' what certain situations equate to. Perhaps we shouldn't be looking for changes to the catch rules, when we cannot define certain game situations adequately, so as to frame hard & fast rules around those same inadequately defined 'situations / 'football moves '.

indeed.

the only other way is to define how long the ball needs to be held for to make it a catch.

before this we have had standing guys in the endzone, catch and hold the ball for a beat, he gets knocked out and its not a catch.

then you have plays where guy get his feet down but falls out of bounds, and the contact with the ground forces it out.